I am a writer, scientist, and educator who focuses on how we think about how we think. Here you'll find reports on the latest brain-related research, analyses of the social and biological aspects of brain health, and some opinionating. My work has appeared at the New York Times Motherlode blog, Forbes, Slate, Grist, The Scientist, Scientific American guest blogs, MIT Tech Review, American Scientist, The Scientist, Backpacker, Texas Parks and Wildlife Magazine, and in other local and regional publications.

The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Who Was First With Shocking CDC Autism Data?

It’s been interesting watching those committed to selling mercury-vaccines as causation for autism try to gain traction for their message–and engage in a little infighting (grabs popcorn). AutismOne, which has a conference coming up, has been co-supporting outlay to PR Newswire to distribute marketing materials flogging their claims of a mercury-autism link. For the uninitiated, this is the group that features an autism “cure” in the form of bleach enemas administered to autistic children and tends to focus a whole lot on mercury.

In a previous post, I wrote about their news release making the rounds, claiming the discovery of a smoking gun of sorts implicating the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) in a conspiracy to hide data connecting thimerosal in vaccines to autism. Describing the heroic efforts of “Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D.,” who has presented previously at AutismOne along with Tim Bolen, who helps Hooker “with strategy and publicizing,” the news release says that

For nearly ten years, Brian Hooker has been requesting documents that are kept under tight wraps by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). … Dr. Hooker, a PhD scientist, worked with two members of Congress to craft the letter to the CDC that recently resulted in his obtaining long-awaited data from the CDC, the significance of which is historic. According to Hooker, the data on over 400,000 infants born between 1991 and 1997, which was analyzed by CDC epidemiologist Thomas Verstraeten, MD, “proves unequivocally that in 2000, CDC officials were informed internally of the very high risk of autism, non-organic sleep disorder and speech disorder associated with Thimerosal (sic) exposure.”

All that Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., really needed to do to obtain these “long-awaited data” was to check out this January 2005 PowerPoint presentation from David Kirby, whose book Evidence of Harm created some true mercury-autism believers. The presentation cites on slide 41 these same “long-awaited” data, from an “unpublished study obtained through FOIA (freedom of information act)” request. For those not wanting to download the PowerPoint–although it certainly is an interesting walk through how the mercury-vaccines-autism argument solidified–here’s what slide 41 says:

Recently rediscovered. First run of the numbers. Very high relative risks for outcomes.

Autism RR = 7.6

UNPUBLISHED STUDY OBTAINED THROUGH FOIA

Italics mine. This slide was presented in January 2005 and specifically references the “recently rediscovered” data as resulting from a “first run of numbers.” There’s a reason Kirby said “recently rediscovered.” Nevertheless, Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., and his co-sponsor AutismOne make the claim that

When the results of the Verstraeten study were first reported outside the CDC in 2005 (italics mine), there was no evidence that anyone but Dr. Verstraeten within the CDC had known of the very high 7.6-fold elevated relative risk of autism from exposure to Thimerosal during infancy. But now, clear evidence exists. A newly-acquired (sic) abstract from 1999 titled, “Increased risk of developmental neurologic impairment after high exposure to Thimerosal containing vaccine in first month of life” required the approval of top CDC officials prior to its presentation at the Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) conference.”

Kirby, in his January 2005 slide presentation, cites having gotten the data from an “unpublished study” obtained via a FOIA request. Kirby provided the same value of 7.6 RR that everyone’s touting. Not exactly fresh smoke coming out of Dr. Brian Hooker’s 2014 abstract gun.

Indeed, even AutismOne, in 2009, heard this information straight from Kirby himself, as the transcript from his 2009 presentation at an AutismOne conference details:

Now, people keep saying there’s never been any evidence to support a link between thimerosal or mercury and autism. This was a preliminary study done by the CDC. And what they did was, they took the kids and they split them in half. Kids who got 25 micrograms or more by 1 month of age, and kids who got less than that by 1 month of age. And they found out that the kids in the higher exposure group were 7.6 times more likely to have autism, and much more likely to have ADD, ADHD, tics, etc.

In spite of this evidence that even they knew this information had been available for years, AutismOne then made another effort along with Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., to freshen things up with this abstract. They open their second news release, again paying PR Newswire for dissemination of their marketing material, with the following:

Last week, PhD biochemist Brian Hooker created a stir when he announced he had obtained sensitive documents from the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. According to Hooker, these documents implicated the vaccine preservative Thimerosal (50% mercury by weight) in causing autism and other neurodevelopmental disorders, revealing what he says CDC officials had long known, but never disclosed publicly (italics mine): a 7.6-fold increase in autism during infancy after exposure.

In spite of the not-newness of this “shocking” 7.6 value and related findings, groups invested in convincing people that vaccines and/or mercury cause autism are staking claim to first discovery of the considerably cooled, not-really-smoking gun. Hooker is affiliated with Shot of Truth, which lists an in-house media contact on the Hooker/AutismOne release, and he’s also a board member for Focus Autism. Both organizations attempt to assert that vaccines are causative in autism. SafeMinds, an organization dedicated to the idea of a mercury-autism link, published a news release on its own site that appeared to tout the CDC’s release of the abstract as a “result of oversight by Congress” and doesn’t mention Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., or these other organizations at all.

Indeed, and speaking of “rediscovery,” SafeMinds traces their discovery of these data–although eliding specific mention of any 1999 abstract–all the way back to their FOIA filing in the year 2000, which yielded, among other things, a pretty famous document they posted in 2004 detailing very specifically the data underlying the 1999 abstract, including tables, graphs, and analyses, in the hope of damning the CDC. They appear to be accurate when they say about Hooker’s claim that

The newly released document mirrors an earlier analysis obtained by SafeMinds through a Freedom of information act (sic) request filed in early 2000. This is when SafeMinds obtained hundreds of emails, minutes to the now famous Simpsonwood meeting and the “Generation Zero” data, the first computerized run of the Vaccine Safety Datalink investigation into thimerosal containing vaccines and adverse neurodevelopmental outcomes.

Kirby also refers to these data as the “Generation Zero” data and cites them [cache of ppt file] as the first in a series of data generations in the Vaccine Safety Datalink study that Verstraeten conducted. In keeping with what appears to be a history of some internal disagreements among mercury/vaccines=autism proponents, Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D. and AutismOne didn’t take too kindly to the SafeMinds claim, observing in their own first news release, distributed by PR Newswire:

Referring to an organization that has seen its share of controversy this past year, Dr. Hooker remarked, “It is unfortunate that SafeMinds issued a press release on my information, is accepting credit for my work and has not supported a worldwide ban on Thimerosal (sic).”

So perhaps there’s some small question of who was the first person or entity outside the CDC to lay eyeballs on this conference abstract or its related data. The abstract, by the way, appears to have been submitted online. In 1999. That must be fun to try to dig up these documents over and over and over again as all of these various invested entities keep demanding it over the years, along with the other thousands of pages of documents they’re requesting. But who was first: The audience of Verstraeten, the study author, presenting at a conference, showing his data to a SafeMinds representative, or revealing all of the details at another conference that’s on the public record or by email acquired by FOIA in 2000? David Kirby in 2004/2005 (or likely earlier), following on his own FOIA request and resulting reportage of that so-shocking 7.6 RR? Was it Congress? SafeMinds in 2000 or 2004? AutismOne at least in 2009? Dr. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., in 2014?

Doesn’t matter, really. What does matter is that the information it contained is not new in 2014. It wasn’t new even in 2005. What matters is that in 1999, last century, it was preliminary, an opening analysis from a study that continued on through two phases and subsequently found no evidence linking thimerosal and autism. What matters is that in the ensuing 15 years after those preliminary data were submitted for a conference presentation, in the second decade of this century, the accumulation of evidence worldwide showing no link has been compelling. Indeed, it is was so substantial by 2002 that the American Academy of Pediatrics retired that year a recommendation that thimerosal be removed from vaccines, a recommendation made in 1999 in spite of no evidence of harm.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

It’s interesting to see anti-vaccine activists cling so desperately to preliminary information that was presented in a meeting abstract long since been superseded by the results of complete studies—since they’ve done this before.

Aficionados of the wacky anti-vaccine movement will likely recall their strained but long-standing support of an abstract of as yet unpublished work presented as a poster at the 2006 International Meeting for Autism Research that seemed to agree with Andrew Wakefield’s failed “MMR dunnit” hypothesis, which was, essentially, that measles vaccines administered in close temporal association with other vaccines (yes, read MMR) can cause chronic measles infection of the intestines and alter intestinal permeability which allows unidentified “neurotoxic intestinal product (eg, exorphorphins) to reach the brain,” and, accordingly, “MMR immunization is a major determinant of the apparent (now substantiated increase in rates of autism.”

Of course, sentient beings generally understand that Wakefield’s hypothesis has clearly failed, but the support of the abstract of work that has remained unpublished for eight years seems evergreen—despite that another poster presented virtually alongside of that long-unpublished work (and, yes, since published) clearly demonstrated why the anti-vaxxer’s favorite abstract from that meeting was, well, just wrong, and that other work clearly shows why it was wrong. Although ardent anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists who couldn’t run a PCR to save their lives (or, in terms of science, find their ass with both hands) have repeatedly suggested that the failed work languishes somewhere in a trashcan due to pressure from evil Big Pharma, in fact it’s clear that it was just wrong.

As with most stories, a series of events took place, which recently catapulted Dr. Wakefield back into the media spotlight.

In the years after his initial controversial finding, linking the MMR vaccine to Crohn’s disease and autism, he published another 19 papers on the vaccine-induced disorder.

All were peer reviewed. However, strangely enough, none of these 19 papers are ever discussed in the media. The only study that keeps seeing the light of day is the original study from 1998, along with the original questions about conflicts of interest, which he explains in great detail in this interview.

This is very interesting indeed, because not only has he continued his own studies, but since then, a large number of replication studies have been performed around the world, by other researchers, that confirm his initial findings.

Says Wakefield:

“… it’s been replicated in Canada, in the U.S., in Venezuela, in Italy… [but] they never get mentioned. All you ever hear is that no one else has ever been able to replicate the findings.

I’m afraid that is false.”

For those of you who have swallowed this type of reporting hook line and sinker, here is a list of 28 studies from around the world that support Dr. Wakefield’s controversial findings:

The Real Dangers of Indemnifying Vaccine Manufacturers Against Lawsuits

Says Wakefield:

“In the background, things were going on behind the scenes that we didn’t know about… The Department of Health had contacted my medical school, the dean in particular, and had tried to close this research down… expressing concerns that it was unethical that all these children had autism. It wasn’t fair on them to go through these procedures.

Were they justified?

Well, here you had the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologist and his colleagues saying, “Yes, they are justified, and here are the findings. We’re happy to show you the findings at any stage, in any venue that you like.”

But nonetheless, there was a concerted effort behind the scenes to stop the work.

And it was particularly the concern of the Department of Heath that there was pending litigation where I had agreed to act as an expert in the litigation… not trying to prove that it was right or wrong, but doing my best as an expert to determine whether there is a case in law against the vaccine manufacturers.”

This was around 1996-97. Wakefield says he “felt there was a professional and moral obligation” to get involved in the potential litigation, “because these children, when their parents die or become infirmed, they are on the street, no one cares, and no one is going to look after them.”

Speaking of conspiracy and federal protection agencies, as Paul Thorsen, the CDC’s lead vaccine safety author runs from the law (while still publishing papers) for grand theft of CDC slush funds, let’s look at gas-chamber experiments the EPA is conducting… at least now they are verbally informing subjects: “There is the possibility you may die from this.”

A scathing review of these gas-chamber experiments was published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

…EPA, then, is experimenting on human beings with what it views as one of the most toxic substances known to man for the simple (and illegal) purpose of evaluating what would happen, apparently in an effort to bolster its epidemiological (i.e. statistical) claims.

Worse, many of the study subjects are health impaired, suffering from metabolic syndrome, asthma, old age, or combinations thereof.

The lawsuit has already produced a notable admission of sorts from an EPA employee. In his declaration, EPA Clinical Studies Coordinator Martin W. Case asserted that he verbally informs human subjects in an ongoing trial that,

I loathe articles like this and for very good reason. Another article that just wants to make every parent who is concerned with how safe it is to give their child vaccines look like a conspiracy nut. I wish people would look at cases like Hannah Poling. Her family won their lawsuit, proving that the vaccines she received worsened her symptoms. There are people who will say that Hannah Poling had mitochondrial disease and it is rare so her reaction is not typical. My own daughter has mitochondrial disease and she is no longer able to get vaccines. She regressed EVERY time. I did not imagine it. I saw it first hand and so did the rest of our family, teachers and her own doctors who then told me they would be ” uncomfortable” giving her further vaccines, but refused to sign off on school papers that vaccines were too dangerous for her, because they are not allowed to! Even encouraging us to take the religious exemption instead! How can anyone say mitochondrial disease is rare when it is not tested for unless you see a specialist? My daughters’ diagnoses is autism as a result of mitochondrial disease. How many other kids might this affect? Until someone can say what is actually causing all of these cases of autism how can anyone have the nerve to suggest they know what is not causing it, especially when the proper studies have not been done?

hmm, this article does not address parents concerned with vaccines. It addresses a specific claim about a conspiracy theory.

In Hannah Poling’s case, the government conceded an encephalopathy, a table injury, in the time period. That means her parents did not need to prove the vaccine caused her harm: if a table injury happens in the right time, causation is assumed.

I don’t know enough about your daughter’s case to comment on that. But Hannah Poling’s case was an extremely unusual one: do you know of anymore like it?

“Another article that just wants to make every parent who is concerned with how safe it is to give their child vaccines look like a conspiracy nut.” No, that is not the purpose of this article. The purpose of this article is to provide an example of how a total lack of data or evidence base leads people with a dog in the hunt to resurrect old, “shocking” findings that have been roundly debunked and then argue with each other about who found it first.

That is exacly Emily’s MO… as witnessed by her other attempts to ridicule conspiracy theorists who dare question big-pharma–the most criminal enterprise known to man, but one never questioned by someone alleged to be concerned about the information “they” are selling you….